(14-04-2015 01:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: You have admitted to me before that you would prefer more homogenous laws, perhaps "ignoring" is the wrong word here.

Yes, it is.

I have pointed out that there are laws against these sales and penalties are quite severe. People who are already criminals seem willing to risk it.
People risk breaking the law all the time.

Law enforcement agencies run sting operations when they suspect there are straw purchases or other illegal sales.

But these laws are not homogenous. And the concern is not only when someone who can't legally own a gun buys a gun. It is also when someone who is unqualified or untrained or mentally incompetent or unstable buys one.

It is no good to enforce illegal sales and/or purchases after the fact if damage has already been done. It should also be a goal to prevent harm where possible.

I have pointed out that there are laws against these sales and penalties are quite severe. People who are already criminals seem willing to risk it.
People risk breaking the law all the time.

Law enforcement agencies run sting operations when they suspect there are straw purchases or other illegal sales.

But these laws are not homogenous. And the concern is not only when someone who can't legally own a gun buys a gun. It is also when someone who is unqualified or untrained or mentally incompetent or unstable buys one.

And if you check the plethora of other gun threads here, you will find that I agree with you.

Quote:It is no good to enforce illegal sales and/or purchases after the fact if damage has already been done. It should also be a goal to prevent harm where possible.

You can say the same thing about any criminal activity.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(14-04-2015 02:08 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: But these laws are not homogenous. And the concern is not only when someone who can't legally own a gun buys a gun. It is also when someone who is unqualified or untrained or mentally incompetent or unstable buys one.

And if you check the plethora of other gun threads here, you will find that I agree with you.

Quote:It is no good to enforce illegal sales and/or purchases after the fact if damage has already been done. It should also be a goal to prevent harm where possible.

You can say the same thing about any criminal activity.

And I would say that about any criminal activity, but I find that guns and gun owners warrant more focus, as guns are only designed to kill and do so efficiently.

(14-04-2015 01:02 PM)Chas Wrote: I would say the onus is on the seller to insure it is legal. Selling to someone who can't legally buy it is also a crime.

But if the seller isn't obligated to do back ground checks or sight a fire arms licence then how do they meet that obligation "legally"?
Is it sufficient for them to verbally ask "Are you legally able to purchase and own a fire arm?"
If the buyer responds with "Sure" does that then meet the seller's legal obligation?

The seller will have to do his own risk assessment. Here in MA, I have to report that sale to the state - that is the check on the legality.

Quote:

(14-04-2015 01:08 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Yes, and that point is moot when there is no way to track these particular firearms purchases.

Police officer sees you in possession of a gun, asks you if you bought it out of state, you reply "No" then you are a free man, you reply "Yes" then you are charged for a crime.
Does anyone reply "Yes"? Why would they do that?

First, the officer determines if you can legally even have a gun.

Quote:

(14-04-2015 01:08 PM)Chas Wrote: The scenarios you have presented are all illegal purchases.

With no documented record of a fire arm sale, no record of the seller or purchaser then how would anyone prove such a transaction occured?
Wouldn't the seller just say the buyer said that they were a legal buyer.
Wouldn't the buyer say they bought within their own state?

Here in MA, there is a record if it is a legal sale. If I can't prove I have the gun legally, I'm in deep doo-doo.

Quote:

(14-04-2015 01:11 PM)Chas Wrote: A loophole is an unintended consequence of the law or rule.
Private sales were intentionally not subjected to a NICS check.

Why are private sales intentionally not subjected to a NICS check? Are NICS checks unimportant?

It would be a huge burden on all concerned, including the FBI.

The NICS check wouldn't even exist if every state licensed firearms possession.

Quote:

(14-04-2015 01:14 PM)Chas Wrote: You are both risking federal prosecution.

Only if they say "Yes" to the officer asking the questions, If they say "No" then there will be no prosecution.
I wonder what they will say?

No, the risk is constant - you are always at risk of being caught.

Quote:

(14-04-2015 01:20 PM)Chas Wrote: Because you possess a firearm that can be tracked back to the FFL and the original purchaser by serial number.
If the FFL is not in your state and you can't show a legal sale, you're in deep yoghurt.

What if there have been two undocumented private sales? There is no way to prove the current possessor didn't buy the gun in their own state.

That's true for unregulated states.

Quote:I would think the obligation is on the police to prove an illegal sale rather than on the possessor to prove a legal sale. innocent until proven guilty right?

Probably true.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(13-04-2015 05:05 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: There are other means of protecting against raccoons and coyotes. Like traps and poison.

The first of which isn't very useful, as raccoons aren't fond of enclosed spaces and generally avoid traps, and the second of which is indiscriminate. Sure wouldn't want my neighbors' dogs eating the poison.

I live in the country and will be buying me a shotgun soon enough, for this exact reason.

(13-04-2015 05:05 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: There are other means of protecting against raccoons and coyotes. Like traps and poison.

The first of which isn't very useful, as raccoons aren't fond of enclosed spaces and generally avoid traps, and the second of which is indiscriminate. Sure wouldn't want my neighbors' dogs eating the poison.

I live in the country and will be buying me a shotgun soon enough, for this exact reason.

(14-04-2015 02:34 PM)Chas Wrote: The seller will have to do his own risk assessment. Here in MA, I have to report that sale to the state - that is the check on the legality.

What pertinent details do you provide in that report?
Do you provide personal details of the buyer i.e. full name, contact phone number, address, identity verification i.e. driver's licence number, social security number, etc? How do you validate the phone number? Can they supply a pre-paid mobile number? How did you verify their address?
Do you provide details of the place of purchase i.e. state?
In that report do you provide details on how you ascertained whether the buyer was a legal fire arms buyer? What would qualify as confirmation? His word? Your assessment based on how he was dressed? How he presented himself?
Has a seller been convicted for not putting in enough effort to ascertain if the buyer is legal? What is the minimum effort that a seller needs to put in (under law)?
Do you supply your own contact details so that you can be questioned about this transaction at a later date? Are you legally obliged to keep a personal record of the transaction? If so, for how long are you obliged?